THE 


SABBATH  QUESTION, 


C.   C.   BURLEIGH, 


»«  No  hurflan  authority  can,  in  any  case  whatever,  control  or 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience."— Constitution  of 
Pennsylvania. 


Philadelphia: 

Merrihew  &  Thompson,    Printers. 

1847. 


THE  SABBATH  QUESTION. 

According  to  the  theory  of  our  govern- 
ment in  this  country,  both  State  and  Na- 
tional, perfect  religious  freedom  is  the 
inalienable  birthright  of  all.  No  one  can 
be  required  by  law  to  adopt  any  creed  or 
religious  observance,  however  true  or  moral- 
ly binding,  in  the  opinion  of  others,  or  even 
in  reality ;  but  in  all  such  matters  his  own 
conscience  is,  under  God,  each  individual's 
own  law-giver  and  judge.  The  quotation 
on  the  title  page,  from  the  Pennsylvania 
Constitution,  is  professedly  regarded  as  a 
self-evident  truth,  and  one  of  most  vital 
importance. 

But  the  practice  does  not  always  agree 
with  the  theory.  Every  legislature  in  the 
Union  interferes  more  or  less  with  the  rights 
of  conscience,  and  that  in  various  ways. 
Their  Sabbatical  statutes  are  glaring  in- 
stances of  such   interference.     They  have 


no  more  right  to  require  the  observance  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  Sabbath,  and 
forbid  labor  and  intrinsically  innocent  re- 
creation on  that  day,  than  to  command 
family  prayer,  or  compel  membership  of  a 
church,  or  forbid  the  teaching  of  any  doc- 
trines but  those  of  the  majority.  The  Jew 
and  the  Seventh  day  Baptist,  who  feel  bound 
to  rest  on  the  last  day  of  the  week,  may 
justly  complain  if  they  are  forced  to  be  idle 
on  the  first  also,  and  are  thus  robbed  of  one- 
sixth  of  their  working  time,  because  they 
conscientiously  obey  the  only  Sabbath  law 
recorded  in  the  Bible.  And  they  who 
"  esteem  every  day  alike,"  and  believe  in 
pervading  all  their  employments  with  that 
true  and  spiritual  worship  which  the  Father 
seeks,  have  as  full  a  right  to  enjoy,  and  live 
out  unmolested,  their  convictions,  as  have 
those  who,  clinging  to  a  more  formal  dis- 
pensation, still  go  up  to  their  Jerusalem 
temples,  and,  like  the  "foolish  Galatians" 
whom  Paul  rebuked  so  sharply,  "  observe 
days  and  months,  and  times  and  years." 

Every   statute,    therefore,   which    exacts 
conformity  to  the  faith  or  usage  of  the  ma- 


jority  in  relation  to  the  holiness  and  holy- 
keeping  of  a  particular  day,  plainly  violates 
the  rights  of  the  minority: — nay,  of  the 
majority  too ;  for  human  legislation  in  re- 
ligious matters  as  truly  invades  the  rights 
of  conscience,  when  it  enjoins  what  we  con- 
sider our  duty,  as  when  it  requires  the  op- 
posite. It  has  no  right  to  command  any 
religious  observance,  right  or  wrong.  It 
would  be  as  truly  guilty  of  usurpation  in 
enjoining  immersion  upon  a  Baptist,  as  upon 
a  Quaker ;  or  auricular  confession  upon  a 
Roman  Catholic,  as  upon  a  Presbyterian. 
Thus  they  who  urge  the  enactment,  or  op- 
pose the  repeal,  of  statutes  for  Sabbath- 
keeping,  are  extremely  shortsighted ;  and 
without  perceiving  it,  are  fastening  on 
themselves  the  fetters  forged  for  others. 
Even  if  they  should  never  change  their  po- 
sition in  relation  to  this  particular  case,  so 
as  to  feel  the  iron  entering  their  souls,  they 
have  established  a  precedent  which  may 
some  day  be  applied  to  other  cases,  where 
it  will  bear  heavily  upon  them. 

It  may  perhaps  be  replied,  that  labor  and 


recreation  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  are 
forbidden,  not  to  compel  a  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  day,  but  that  those  who 
choose  to  keep  it  holy  may  be  undisturbed 
by  the  din  and  bustle  of  every  day  occupa- 
tions going  on  around  them,  and  enjoy  the 
quiet  so  favorable  to  devotional  thoughts 
and  exercises. 

I  answer,  granting  such  a  season  of  quiet 
to  be  desirable  for  such  purposes,  is  it  any 
more  so  during  the  devotions  of  the  first 
than  of  any  other  day'?  Yet  who  would 
ask  the  prohibition  of  all  labor  and  diver- 
sion, on  the  hours  of  daily  private  and  family 
devotion,  or  of  social  prayer  meetings,  reli- 
gious lectures,  "protracted  meetings,"  &c, 
which  often  fill  up  no  inconsiderable  portion 
of  what  is  called  "  secular  time!"  If  a 
general  rest  from  the  common  business  of 
life  is  not  needed — as  none  pretend  it  is — 
to  make  these  seasons  spiritually  profitable 
to  those  attending  on  them,  why  need  it  be 
enjoined  on  the  first  day  of  the  week! 
especially  when,  without  any  injunction,  it 
would  far  more  generally  take  place  on  that, 


than  on  any  other  day.  Besides,  if  such  a 
general  rest  on  the  special  day  of  worship 
were  necessary,  or  so  desirable  as  to  justify 
its  legislative  enforcement,  this  would  not 
prove  the  right  of  some  sects  to  peculiar 
privileges  in  regard  to  it.  The  keepers  of 
the  first  day  are  no  more  entitled  to  protec- 
tion from  the  annoyance  of  worldly  occu- 
pations in  their  holy  time,  than  the  Jew  and 
the  Seventh  day  Baptists  in  theirs,  and  the 
Friends  at  that  of  their  regular  week  day 
meeting.  If  either  class  must  have  a  pro- 
tective law,  all  should ;  for  the  same  reason 
applies  to  all. 

The  difficulty  is  not  removed  by  saying 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the  divinely 
appointed  Christian  Sabbath,  which  the 
other  days  alluded  to  are  not ;  for  that 
brings  up  a  question  beyond  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Legislature.  Though  if  this  were 
not  so,  still,  another  objection  equally  fatal 
would  meet  the  present  enactments  on  the 
subject.  No  proof  can  be  shown  that  the 
first  day  of  the  week  is  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath :  or  that  God  now  requires  any  day  to 


s 


be  kept  more  holy  than  every  other;  or 
forbids  labor  or  recreations,  in  themselves 
harmless,  on  any  day;  or  would  have  the 
slightest  distinction  made  among-  the  days 
of  the  week.  Perhaps  no  doctrine  ever 
found  place  in  any  professedly  Christian 
creed,  with  less  authority  or  even  shadow 
of  a  warrant  from  Scripture,  than  this  of  the 
first-day  Sabbath.  To  say  nothing  of  the 
weight  of  testimony  against  it,  the  utter 
want  of  evidence  in  its  favor  is  reason 
enough  for  its  rejection. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  the  Sabbath  was 
peculiarly  a  Jewish  institution,  and  nowhere 
enjoins  its  observance  upon  any  but  Israel- 
ites. Even  for  them,  it  is  treated  as  a  part 
of  that  "  shadow  of  things  to  come"  which 
was  to  vanish  at  the  coming  of  Christ. 
Attempts  have  indeed  been  made  to  fix  its 
origin  at  the  creation,  so  that  its  perpetuity 
and  universal  obligation  may  be  inferred ; 
but  no  proof  of  its  existence  before  the 
Israelites  left  Egypt,  has  ever  been  produced. 
Genesis  2 :  3,  sometimes  quoted  as  evi- 
dence of  an  earlier  origin,  is  no  command ; 


it  specifies  no  act  to  be  done  or  omitted, 
nor  tells  us  when  or  how  the  seventh  day- 
was  blessed  and  sanctified.  It  simply  as- 
signs the  Creator's  resting  on  that  day  as  a 
reason  for  its  sanctification,  whenever  it  did 
take  place.  If  a  historian  of  New  England 
should  add,  after  an  account  of  the  landing 
of  the  pilgrims,  that  this  is  the  reason  why 
the  22nd  of  December  is  celebrated  by 
their  posterity,  no  reader  would  understand 
him  as  saying  that  the  celebration  was  in- 
stituted on  the  very  day  of  their  landing,  or 
is  observed  by  all  their  descendants.  So 
neither  can  we  infer  the  institution  of  a 
Sabbath  at  the  creation,  from  the  incidental 
remark  of  Moses,  that  for  the  weekly  rest 
which  his  nation  was  to  observe  in  remem- 
brance of  their  resting  from  the  service  of 
Egyptian  task-masters,  the  seventh  day  was 
chosen  because  in  it  God  "rested  from  his 
work."  Archbishop  Whately,  said  to  be 
"  one  of  the  first  scholars  and  soundest 
thinkers  in  Great  Britain,"  says  that  "as 
Moses  was  writing  to  the  Israelites,  who 
were  charged  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  he  would 


10 

naturally,  when  recording  the  creation  in 
six  days,  advert  to  the  day  which  they  ob- 
served in  commemoration  of  it,  even  had 
there  never  been  any  such  observance  till 
the  delivery  of  the  law  from  Sinai."  Wood, 
in  his  Bible  Dictionary,  states  that  the 
modern  Jews  boast  of  the  Sabbath  "  as  their 
spouse,  given  to  them  before  any  other 
nation." 

And  as  the  Bible  contains  no  Sabbath  laws 
older  than  the  time  of  Moses,  so,  too,  it 
gives  no  example  of  Sabbath  keeping  at  an 
earlier  day.  In  the  words  of  the  late  Bishop 
White,  of  Philadelphia,  "  certain  it  is  that 
we  meet  with  no  instance  of  an  actual  hal- 
lowing of  the  Sabbath,  until  we  reach  the 
16th  chapter  of  Exodus.  *  *  *  *  That 
it  had  been  observed  by  the  Patriarchs,  there 
is  not  a  hint  in  their  history."  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, Irenius,  Tertullian,  and  Eusebius,  the 
celebrated  historians  of  the  church,  all  ex- 
press the  opinion  that  it  was  not  kept  before 
Moses.  A  compilation  made,  as  Home  states 
in  his  Introduction  to  the  Bible,  "from  the 
best  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern,"  speaks 


11 


of  Genesis  2:  3,  as  referring  "  to  a  law  not 
enacted  till  some  ages  afterward ;"  cites 
Ezek.  20  :  12 — 20,  as  a  proof  of  its  Mosaic 
origin,  and  "that  the  patriarchs  were  not 
obliged  thereby,  nor  did  practice  it ;"  and 
says  that  "  in  all  the  writings  of  Moses  be- 
fore the  commencement  of  the  Hebrew  poli- 
ty, there  is  not  so  much  as  the  most  distant 
hint  of  a  Sabbath  observed  or  known." 
The  learned  Selden,  in  a  work  of  extensive 
and  diligent  research,  said,  by  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  to  contain  "  all  that  can  be  found 
on  the  subject  of  the  institution  of  the  Sab- 
bath," testifies  that  no  trace  of  it  can  be 
found  among  the  early  Gentile  nations,  and 
that  the  Jewish  writers  maintain  that  it  is 
not  binding  upon  the  Gentiles. 

To  all  this  may  be  added  the  testimony 
of  the  Bible  itself.  In  Deut.  5 :  Moses  re- 
cites the  ten  commandments — of  course  in- 
cluding the  Sabbath  law  of  the  fourth — 
calling  them  God's  covenant  with  Israel ; 
and  says  of  them,  in  verse  3d,  "  the  Lord 
made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but 
with  us,  even  us  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive 


12 


this  day.''''  And  in  Nehemiah  9 :  13,  14,  it 
is  said,  "  thou  earnest  down  upon  Mount 
Sinai,  and  madest  known  unto  them  (the 
Israelites)  thy  Holy  Sabbath;"  clearly  im- 
plying that  it  was  not  known  till  then. 
The  circumstances,  too,  of  its  announce- 
ment in  the  wilderness,  as  recited  Ex.  16: 
23 — 29,  favor  the  notion  that  it  was  then 
first  heard  of.  Bishop  White,  alluding  to 
the  recital,  says  that  "the  manner  of  the 
giving  and  receiving  of  the  institution,  car- 
ries strong  appearances  of  its  not  being 
familiar  to  the  Israelites." 

Some  have  thought  that  the  fourth  com- 
mandment implies,  in  the  words  "  remember 
the  Sabbath  day,"  that  it  was  previously 
known.  But  Archbishop  Whately  very 
justly  says  that  this  expression  "  does  not 
necessarily  imply  its  having  been  before  ob- 
served; but,  rather,  that  the  precept  was 
one  liable  to  be  violated  through  negligence 
and  forgetfulness.  We  even  say  in  like 
manner  'remember  to  call  at  such  a  place,' 
or  c  remember  to  deliver  this  letter,'  mean- 
ing take  care  not  to  forget  it.     It  is  not  said 


13 

accordingly,  '  remember  not  to  steal ;'  re- 
member to  honor  your  parents,'  &c. ;  though 
certainly  these  precepts  must  have  been  al- 
ways in  force ;  but  they  are  such  as  no  one 
is  likely  to  violate  through  forgetfulness." 

The  reasons  assigned  for  its  institution, 
also  go  to  prove  that  it  was  meant  to  be  pe- 
culiar to  the  Israelites.  It  was  to  be  a  sign 
between  God  and  them.  In  Exodus  31:  13, 
Moses  is  bidden  to  say  to  them,  "  verily  my 
Sabbath  shall  ye  keep,  for  it  is  a  sign  be- 
tween me  and  you,  throughout  your  genera- 
tions, that  ye  may  know  that  I  am  the  Lord 
that  doth  sanctify  you."  And  in  16 :  17, 
"  Wherefore  the  childrenof  Israel  shall  keep' 
the  Sabbath  *  *  *  throughout  their 
generations  for  a  perpetual  covenant.  It  is 
a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel 
for  ever."  InEzekiel  20  :  12,  the  same  tes- 
timony is  repeated,  "  I  gave  them  my  Sab- 
baths, to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  themP  In 
Deuteronomy  5:  15,  it  is  enjoined  as  a  me- 
morial of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt, 
"  Remember  that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God 
2 


14 

brought  thee  out  of  thence,  through  a  mighty 
hand,  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  command- 
ed thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day."  Now, 
asPaley  well  remarks  upon  these  texts,  "  it 
does  not  seem  easy  to  understand  how  the 
Sabbath  could  be  a  sign  between  God  and 
the  people  of  Israel,  unless  the  observance  of 
it  was  peculiar  to  that  people,  and  designed 
to  be  so." 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  sabbatical  law 
was  enacted  for  the  Jews  alone,  and,  of 
course,  that  it  has  shared  the  fate  of  what- 
ever else  was  peculiar  to  their  code,  or  rather, 
of  their  whole  code  as  such.  As  it  was 
never  binding  on  the  Gentiles,  so  now,  since 
the  making  of  a  "  new  covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah,  not 
according  to  the  covenant  made  with  their 
fathers,"  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt, 
(Heb.  8:  8,  9,)  the  Jews  are  also  free  from 
its  obligation.  The  New  Testament  plainly 
teaches  the  utter  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic 
law. 

"  The  priesthood  being  changed"  by  the 
rising  of  "a  high  priest  for  ever,  after  the 


15 


order  of  Melchisedec,"  Paul  tells  us,  "there 
is  made  of  necessity  a  change  of  the  law." 
Heb.  7: 12.  And  again,  in  verse  18th,  "there 
is  verily  a  disannulling  of  the  commandment 
going  before,  for  the  weakness  and  unprofi- 
tableness thereof."  In  Galatians  3:  19,  we 
are  told  that  "the  law  was  added  because  of 
transgressions,  till  the  seed  (Christ)  should 
come  to  whom  the  promise  was  made."  In 
verses  24,  25,  that  "  the  law  was  our  school- 
master, to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith ;  but  after  that 
faith  is  come  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master." In  Romans  7 :  6,  that  "  now  we 
are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being  dead 
wherein  we  were  held;  that  we  should  serve 
in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of 
the  letter."  If,  then,  the  Mosaic  law  is 
changed,  annulled,  dead,  its  sabbatical  or- 
dinances cannot  now  be  in  force,  even  for 
the  Jews  ;  still  less,  if  less  could  be,  for  the 
Gentiles,  whom  they  never  bound. 

To  this  reasoning  it  is  commonly  replied 
that  only  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  Mosaic 
code  is  abolished;  not  its  moral  precepts.  But 


16 


this  distinction,  if  admitted,  will  not  save 
the  sabbatical  law,  for  that  belongs  to  the 
abrogated  part.  It  is  not  a  moral  precept, 
but  a  mere  positive  ordinance  ;  for  Sabbath- 
keeping  is  not  a  duty  in  itself,  before  any- 
express  command ;  it  only  becomes  one  by 
being  commanded.  As  Paley  well  says, 
"  the  distinction  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  its  na- 
ture as  much  a  positive  ceremonial  institu- 
tion as  that  of  many  other  seasons  appointed 
by  the  Levitical  law  to  be  kept  holy,  and 
to  be  observed  by  a  strict  rest ;  as  the  first 
and  seventh  days  of  unleavened  bread,  the 
feast  of  Pentecost,  the  feast  of  tabernacles  ; 
and  in  the  23d  chapter  of  Exodus,  the  Sab- 
bath and  these  are  recited  together." 

The  "  compilation  from  the  best  interpre- 
ters," above  quoted,  speaks  of  the  Sabbath 
law  "  as  different  from"  the  precepts  which 
were  "  of  moral  obligation,"  and  as  "found- 
ed on  no  obligation  antecedent  to  the  law- 
giver's will;"  and  adds,  "that  a  seventh 
day  should  be  assigned,  and  a  total  cessa- 
tion from  labor  observed,  is  plainly  of  posi- 
tive, ritual  institution,  obligatory  only  upon 


17 

the  Jews,  to  whom  it  made  part  of  their 
ceremonial  law.'1 

Archbishop  Whately  holds  the  same  opin- 
ion, and  contends  that  if  we  admit  the  au- 
thority of  this  ordinance,  "  we  are  debtors 
to  keep  the  whole  law,  ceremonial  as  well 
as  moral." 

The  celebrated  Bishop  Warburton,  in  his 
"  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,"  declares  that 
"  there  is  the  same  authority  for  circum- 
cision derived  from  the  Mosaic  law,  as  there 
is  for  the  continuance  of  the  Sabbath." 

In  the  letter  written  to  Antioch,  from  the 
Apostles  and  the  church  at  Jerusalem  touch- 
ing the  observance  of  Jewish  ordinances  by 
the  Gentile  Christians,  they  say,  "  it  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us,  to  lay 
upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  ne- 
cessary things  ;"  among  which  the  Sabbath 
is  not  named.  Would  they  have  left  it  out, 
if  they  had  regarded  it  as  part  of  the  moral 
law  \  And  Paul,  in  teaching  the  abrogation 
of  the  Mosaic  code,  makes  no  exception  in 
favor  of  the  Sabbath  ; — nay,  more,  he  ex- 
pressly includes  it  among  the  ordinances 
2* 


18 

which  are  blotted  out  and  no  longer  binding. 
He  rebukes  the  Galatians  for  turning  again 
"  to  the  Aveak  and  beggarly  element s,"  and 
is  afraid  that  he  had  "  bestowed  upon"  them 
u  labor  in  vain,"  because  they  observed 
"  days  and  months  and  times  and  years." 
Gal.  4  :  9 — 11.  But  he  could  not  have  fear- 
ed it  for  this  reason,  unless  he  had  labored 
to  dissuade  them  from  such  observances.  In 
his  letter  to  the  Romans  he  implies  most 
clearly  that  no  day  is  peculiarly  sacred,  and 
that  whether  the  observance  of  days  is  a 
duty  or  not,  depends  wholly  on  the  dictates 
of  each  one's  own  conscience.  "  One  man 
esteemeth  one  day  above  another  ;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man 
be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  Rom. 
14:  5.  Could  he  have  spoken  thus  if  he  had 
regarded  Sabbath  keeping  as  a  Christian 
duty,  universally  binding  1  To  the  Colos- 
sians,  after  telling  them  of  Christ's  "  blot- 
ting out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances  that 
was  against  us,"  he  adds,  by  way  of  practi- 
cal inference,  "  let  no  man  therefore  judge 
you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a 


19 


holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sab- 
bath days  ;  which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to 
come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ."  Col.  2: 
16,  17. 

Sabbatarians,  I  know,  are  wont  to  reply 
that  these  texts  refer  to  the  other  holy  rest- 
days  of  the  Jews,  some  of  which  are  called 
Sabbaths,  and  not  to  the  weekly  Sabbath 
enjoined  in  the  fourth  commandment.  That 
precept  being  a  part  of  the  decalogue,  which, 
say  they,  is  a  summary  of  the  moral  law,  is 
also  like  the  other  nine,  moral  rather  than 
ceremonial,  and  of  course  always  and  every- 
where in  force.  But  this  is  sheer  assump- 
tion. Paul  nowhere  hints  at  any  such  dis- 
tinction between  the  decalogue,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Mosaic  code,  nor  is  there  any  such  in 
the  nature  of  their  respective  requirements. 
The  decalogue  enjoins  some  moral  duties ; 
i.  e.  things  in  themselves  obligatory ;  and  so 
do  other  parts  of  the  law  of  Moses.  This 
no  more  proves  all  the  ten  commandments 
to  be  everywhere  and  always  binding,  than 
it  proves  the  whole  Jewish  code  to  be  so. 
That  the  Sabbath  is  not  of  moral  obligation 


20 

in  its  nature,  has  been  shown  already ;  that 
it  cannot  become  moral  by  being  enjoined 
in  the  decalogue,  is  self-evident ;  since  the 
very  meaning  of  moral  obligation  is,  that 
which  is  binding  without  any  positive  com- 
mand. 

Moreover  Paul  as  distinctly  teaches  the 
abrogation  of  the  decalogue,  as  he  does  that 
of  any  ceremonial  statute.  "  It  cannot  be 
denied,"  as  Archbishop  Whately  truly  says, 
"  that  he  does  speak  frequently  and  strong- 
ly of  the  termination  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
of  the  exemption  of  Christians  from  its  obli- 
gations, without  ever  limiting  and  qualify- 
ing the  assertion, — without  even  hinting  at 
a  distinction  between  one  part  which  is  abro- 
gated, and  another  which  remains  in  full 
force."  That  he  cannot  mean  the  ceremo- 
nial law  alone,  Whately  farther  argues,  from 
his  making,  in  the  very  passages  in  question, 
"  such  allusions  to  sin  as  evidently  show 
that  he  had  the  moral  law  in  his  mind  ;  as 
where  he  says,  'the  law  was  added  because 
of  transgression,'  "  &c.  ;  from  his  always 
inculcating  "  the  necessity  of  moral  conduct 


21 

on  some  different  ground,"  and  not  "  by  de- 
claring that  part  of  the  law  continued  to  be 
binding ;  for  instance,  (  what  shall  we  say- 
then  1  shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace 
may  abound  1  God  forbid  V  He  does  not 
then  add  that  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  law  re- 
mains in  force;  but  urges  this  conside- 
ration, '  How  shall  we,  who  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  1  *  *  *  *  * 
And  again,  '  Shall  we  sin  because  we  are  not 
under  the  law  but  under  grace  1  God  forbid  V 
*  #  #  #  i  Being  then  made  free  from 
sin,  ye  became  the  servants  of  righteousness.' 
And  such  also  is  his  tone  in  every  passage 
relating  to  the  same  subject."  The  law 
from  which,  in  Rom.  7:  6,  he  says  "  we  are 
delivered,"  it  "  being  dead"  manifestly  in- 
cludes the  ten  commandments  ;  for  in  verse 
7th  he  quotes  one  of  them,  "  thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  as  part  of  it.  So,  too,  it  is  plain 
from  a  comparison  of  Heb.  8  :  9 — 13,  with 
Deut.  5:  2—21,  and  Ex.  24:  28,  that  they 
are  referred  to  as  the  old  covenant  which 
"  decayeth"  and  "  is  ready  to  vanish  away." 
In  2  Cor.  3:  7—13,   the  law  which  is  there 


22 


called  "  a  ministration  of  death,''  verse  7  ; 
and  is  said  to  be  "  done  away,"  7 — 11  ;  and 
"abolished,"  13,  is  clearly  identified  as  the 
decalogue,  by  the  mention  of  its  being  '-en- 
graven on  stones,"  and  by  the  allusion  to 
the  shining  of  Moses's  face  when  he  brought 
it  to  the  people.  Ex.  34- :  '29.  records  the 
shining  of  his  face  in  connection  with  the 
giving  of  the  ten  commandments  ;  and  no 
other  part  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  ever  spoken 
of  as  written  on  stones. 

Thus,  according  to  Paul,  the  whole  of 
that  law  is  abolished,  not  excepting  the  ten 
commandments.  This  by  no  means  gives  us 
a  license  to  do  the  essentially  wrongr  acts 
forbidden  by  the  law,  but  releases  us  only 
from  its  positive  ordinances:  for,  in  the  words 
of  Whately,  "the  natural  distinctions  of  right 
and  wrong  remain  where  they  were.  Xot 
having  been  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  law, 
they  cannot  be  overthrown  by  its  removal ; 
any  more  than  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  implied  the  destruction  of 
Mount  Zion  whereon  it  was  built.'1  Neither, 
as  the  same  author  argues,  does  exemption 


23 


from  this  law  "  leave  men  without  a  moral 
guide,  since,  after  all,  the  light  of  reason  is 
that  which  every  man  must  be  left,  in  the 
interpretation  of  that  very  law."  For,  as 
Moses  has  not  told  us  which  of  his  precepts 
are  moral  and  which  are  ceremonial,  that 
point  must  be  determined  by  our  own  con- 
sciences. So  far,  consequently,  from  the 
moral  precepts  of  the  law  being,  to  the  Chris- 
tian, necessary  as  a  guide  to  his  judgment 
in  determining  what  is  right  and  wrong,  on 
the  contrary,  this  moral  judgment  is  neces- 
sary to  determine  what  are  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  Moses.  Thus  we  are  brought  to 
the  conclusion,  so  clearly  stated  by  this  able 
writer,  that,  "  on  the  one  hand,  the  Mosaic 
law  was  limited  both  to  the  nation  of  the 
Israelites,  and  to  the  period  before  the  gos- 
pel ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  natural 
principles  of  morality,  which  among  other 
things  it  inculcates,  are  from  their  own  cha- 
racter of  universal  obligation ;"  not  because 
they  are  inculcated  in  the  Mosaic  law,  "but 
because  they  are  moral."  And  as  the  keep- 
ing of  one  day  in  seven  as  holy  time  is  not 


24 

required  by  the  natural  principles  of  mo- 
rality, and  the  positive  Mosaic  institution  is 
no  longer  in  force,  nothing  less  than  an  ex- 
press gospel  mandate  can  make  it  binding 
upon  Christians. 

But  the  New  Testament  will  be  searched 
in  vain  for  any  such  mandate,  or  the  slight- 
est proof  that  Jesus  or  his  apostles  ever 
taught  or  even  hinted  that  Sabbath-keeping 
is  a  duty,  or  Sabbath-breaking  a  sin.  In  all 
the  apostolic  writings,  the  Sabbath  is  only 
once  named  in  connection  with  any  inti- 
mation of  the  duty  of  Christians  concerning 
it,  and  that  is  "  let  no  man  judge  you  in  re- 
spect 0f  *  *  *  *  *  the  Sabbath  days,  which 
are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,"  Col.  2: 
16,  17.  If  any  where  it  is  alluded  to  with- 
out being  named — as  for  instance,  perhaps, 
in  Eom.  14:  5,  and  Gal.  4:  10,  11 — it  is 
uniformly  in  -such  a  way  as  to  show  that  its 
observance  is  not  required.  That  Jesus  ever 
kept  it,  the  Bible  gives  no  proof;  that  he 
repeatedly  broke  it,  and  justified  its  breach 
by  others,  is  undeniably  certain.  Both  in 
word  and  practice  he  treated  it  as  not  be- 


25 

longing  to  the  moral  law,  nor  binding  upon 
his  disciples.  When  the  Pharisees  con- 
demned them  for  doing  what  was  unlawful, 
in  plucking  the  ears  of  corn,  as  they  went 
through  the  fields  on  the  Sabbath  day,  he 
defended  their  act,  not  as  unforbidden  by 
the  Mosaic  law,  but  as  analogous  to  David's 
breach  of  an  unquestionably  ritual  precept, 
and  to  certain  well  known  instances  of  Sab- 
bath-profanation, confessedly  blameless  by 
reason  of  the  circumstances;  thus  showing 
that  the  Sabbath  also  was  merely  ritual, 
and  its  obligation  a  thing  of  circumstance. 
Matt.  12:  1 — 5.  By  adding,  in  verse  7th, 
"  if  ye  had  known  what  this  meaneth,  I  will 
have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not 
have  condemned  the  guiltless,"  he  intimated, 
most  clearly,  its  ceremonial  character,  con- 
trastedi  it  with  moral  duties,  and  showed 
that  its  violation  was  no  sin.  This  claim, 
in  verse  8th,  that  "the  Son  of  man  is  Lord 
even  of  the  Sabbath  day" — t.  e.,  has  the 
right  to  change,  suspend,  or  abrogate  it — 
implies  no  less  strongly  that  it  is  only  a 
positive  ordinance,  and  not  of  moral  obliga- 


26 


tion.     For   a  moral  precept  cannot   be   al- 
tered or  repealed. 

In  Mark  2:  27,  Jesus  is  related  to  have 
said,  on  this  occasion,  "the  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath." 
The  Sabbatarians  have  strangely  miscon- 
strued this  passage,  in  using  it  to  prove  the 
Sabbath  law  perpetual,  and  universally  bind- 
ing. Not  only  the  context,  but  the  latter 
clause  of  the  text  itself,  plainly  forbids  such 
an  interpretation.  Jesus  was  opposing  an 
attempt,  not  to  limit  the  ordinance,  but  to 
enforce  it  strictly.  He  said  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  not  in  distinction  from 
its  being  made  for  a  particular  nation  or 
age,  but  in  denial  of  its  paramount  authority 
over  man ;  its  claim  to  be  an  end  rather  than 
a  means.  His  doctrine  evidently  was,  the 
Sabbath  is  a  means,  to  be  used  as  it  may  be 
found  useful,  not  otherwise ;  while  it  con- 
tinues to  be  useful,  no  longer.  It  has  no 
peculiar  sacredness  which  should  save  it 
from  violation,  when  to  keep  it  will  not  add 
to  man's  comfort  or  welfare.  When  he 
healed  the  cripple  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda 


27 

on  the  Sabbath,  John  5 :  8,  lie  commanded 
him  to  take  up  his  bed  and  walk  ;  in  open 
violation  of  the  injunction  to  "  bear  no  bur- 
den on  the  Sabbath  day."  Jer.  17:  21.  And 
to  the  persecution  of  the  Jews,  who  sought 
to  slay  him,  for  this  profanation  of  their 
holy  time,  his  only  answer  was  u  my  Father 
worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work ;"  or,  as 
Whately  says,  it  should  be  rendered,  "  my 
Father  has  been  working  up  to  this  time," 
&c. ;  "  the  process  of  vegetation,  the  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  all  the  other 
works  of  God,  going  on  without  intermission 
on  the  Sabbath."  In  the  cure  of  the  blind 
man,  John  9,  Jesus  not  only  chose  the  Sab- 
bath for  his  work,  "  but  instead  of  merely 
speaking  the  word,  he  made  clay  and  anointed 
the  man's  eyes,  as  if  on  purpose  to  draw  at- 
tention to  his  doing  a  work  on  that  day." 
Luke  14  records  another  act  of  his,  such  as 
Sabbatarians  now  call  sinful.  He  visited  on 
the  Sabbath  with  what  seems  to  have  been 
a  large  party  of  invited  guests,  at  a  sump- 
tuous feast ;  for  we  read  that  they  who  were 
bidden    chose   out    the    chief   rooms:    and 


28 


though  this  rivalry  was  rebuked,  it  is  not 
intimated  that  inviting  such  a  company  on 
that  day  was  wrong. 

To  this  testimony  of  the  words  and  acts 
of  Jesus,  and  the  writings  of  his  apostles, 
may  be  added  the  practice  of  the  early 
Christians.  W.  L.  Fisher,  in  his  valuable 
little  work  on  the  History  of  the  Sabbath, 
quotes  Eusebius,  as  saying  in  so  many 
words,  that  "the  early  Christians  kept  no 
Sabbaths,"  and  adds,  that  "they  appear  to 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  assembling  to- 
gether for  religious  purposes,  without  re- 
gard to  days ;  often,  in  the  very  early  morn- 
ing, and  after  sunset,  apparently  to  give  the 
laboring  class  of  the  community  an  oppor- 
tunity to  attend,  without  interrupting  their 
usual  occupations."  He  refers  to  "  Cave's 
Primitive  Christianity,"  "Mosheim's  Ec- 
clesiastical History,"  and  "Pliny's  Letter's 
to  Trajan,"  as  authorities  for  this  statement. 
He  also  quotes  Justin  Martyr,  as  replying 
to  Trypho,  the  Jew,  who  had  reproached 
the  Christians  for  not  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath ; — "  Do  you  not  see  that  the  elements 


29 

are  never  idle,  nor  keep  Sabbaths  1  Con- 
tinue as  you  were  created,  for  if  there  was 
no  need  of  circumcision  before  Abraham, 
nor  of  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
festivals,  and  oblations  before  Moses,  neither 
now  is  there  likewise  after  Christ."  "  If 
any  among  you  is  guilty  of  perjury  or  fraud, 
let  him  cease  from  these  crimes  ;  if  he  is  an 
adulterer,  let  him  repent,  and  he  will  have 
kept  the  kind  of  Sabbath  pleasing  to  God." 
So  palpable  an  admission  of  Trypho's  charge, 
would  not  have  been  made,  surely,  if  it  had 
been  false.  That  secular  enjoyments  on  the 
day  now  called  the  Christian  Sabbath,  were 
not  thought  sinful  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
church,  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  Con- 
stantine's  edict  for  the  observance  of  the 
day.  It  requires  the  judges,  townspeople, 
and  tradesmen  to  rest  "on  the  venerable 
day  of  the  sun,"  but  leaves  the  country 
people  free  "to  attend  to  the  business  of 
agriculture,  because  it  often  happens  that 
no  other  day  is  so  fit  for  sowing  corn,"  &c, 
"  lest  the  critical  moment  being  let  slip,  men 


30 


should  lose  the  commodities  granted  by  the 
Providence  of  Heaven." 

In  an  appendix  to  a  life  of  Martin  Luther, 
published  in  this  country,  (by  a  Lutheran 
clergyman,  I  believe,)  nearly  thirty  years 
ago,  and  professing  to  give  the  opinions  of 
Luther  and  the  church  he  founded,  touching 
various  matters,  it  is  said  that  "  the  solemn 
celebration  of  the  Sabbath  takes  its  first  date 
from  the  time  of  Constantine."     "What  el  v 
says  that  "  numerous  early  Christian  fathers, 
in  their  commentaries  on  the   Decalogue, 
describe  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  correspond- 
ing, in  the  analogous  scheme  of  Christianity, 
not   so  much  to  the  Lord's  day,  as  to  the 
whole  life  of  the  Christian,  to  his  abstinence 
from  all  works  that  may  draw  off  his  af- 
fections from  God,  and  to  his  complete  dedi- 
cation   of   himself  to    his    service."      The 
council  of  Laodicea,  held  in  A.  D.  668,  after 
saying  that  Christians  must  not  remain  idle 
on  the  Sabbath,  adds  "  Let  them  prefer  Sun- 
day, and  show  their  respect  to  that  day  by 
abstaining  from  work  if  they  choose."  From 
these   and  other  testimonials  which  might 


be  cited,  it  would  seem  that  the  early 
Christians  did  not  believe  in  the  holiness  of 
particular  days,  or  the  duty  of  Sabbath 
keeping.  Thus  it  appears  that  neither  Pa- 
triarchal usage  nor  Mosaic  law,  neither  the 
teaching  nor  the  example  of  Jesus  and  his 
apostles,  nor  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church,  gives  any  proof  of  the  perpetuity 
and  universal  obligation  of  the  Sabbath; 
while  from  several  of  these  sources  the  evi- 
dence is  clear  that  it  was  a  local  and  tempo- 
rary institution,  no  more  binding  upon  us 
now,  than  that  of  circumcision  or  burnt  of- 
ferings. 

Nay,  more,  that  the  original  Sabbath  law 
is  still  in  force,  is  practically  denied  by 
those  who,  in  words,  most  strenuously  af- 
firm it ;  who  contend  with  the  greatest  zeal 
for  its  universal  and  perpetual  obligation, 
and  call  loudest  for  legislative  enforcement 
of  its  observance.  They  depart  from  it  in 
almost  every  essential  particular  ;  keeping 
another  <lay  in  another  manner  and  for  another 
reason,  than  those  set  forth  in  the  law.  That 
required  the  seventh  day  to  be  kept ;  they 


32 

keep  the  first,  and  break  the  law  by  work- 
ing on  the  seventh.  Even  on  the  first  day 
they  do  things  forbidden  on  the  seventh, 
such  as  gathering  fuel,  Num.  15:  32,  35; 
kindling  fires,  Ex.  35:  3;  preparing  food, 
16:  5 — 29;  going  more  than  a  "Sabbath 
day's  journey,"  (which  was  not  quite  a 
mile,)  often  riding  several  miles  to  church 
and  depriving  their  servants  and  horses  of 
the  rest  enjoined  on  them,  20:  10,  &c. 
They  keep  their  Sabbath  in  memory  of 
Christ's  resurrection ;  the  original  reason 
for  a  Sabbath  was  God's  resting  on  the 
seventh  day,  Ex.  20  :  11,  and  the  reason  for 
its  observance  by  those  to  whom  it  was 
given,  was  their  resting  from  the  toil  of 
Egyptian  bondage.  Deut.  5  :  15.  If,  then, 
the  original  Sabbath  law  is  still  in  force, 
our  first-day  keepers  are  Sabbath  breakers ; 
but  if  what  they  keep  is  the  true  Christian 
Sabbath,  then  the  original  institution  is  done 
away.  It  is  a  sheer  perversion  of  language 
to  call  that  the  same,  which  differs  in  so 
many  particulars.     As  well  might  we  say 


33 

that    the    Fourth  of   July  is  the    same  as 
Christmas. 

But,  say  the  Sabbatarians,  the  first  day 
has  been  divinely  appointed  to  be  kept  holy 
instead  of  the  seventh.  The  institution  is 
the  same,  only  the  day  is  changed.  To 
this,  Henry  Grew  has  well  replied,  that  "to 
affirm  the  perpetuity  of  the  original  Sabbath 
and  also  a  change  of  day,  is  a  contradiction. 
The  particular  day  enters  into  the  essence 
of  the  original  Sabbath.  Another  day  is 
another  institution."  The  Sabbatarians 
argue  that  "while  the  reason  remains,  the 
law  remains."  Now,  as  "the  reason — God's 
having  rested  on  the  seventh  day — certainly 
remains,  the  law  for  observing  that  day  must 
remain  as  long  as  the  institution  itself." 
To  prove  the  change,  therefore,  is  to  prove 
one  law  repealed  and  another  enacted.  This 
needs  evidence  as  strong  as  that  of  the  first 
enactment.  Where  is  it  found  1  Not  in 
the  New  Testament,  for  it  nowhere  asserts 
or  implies  such  a  change.  It  records  no 
act  or  word  of  Jesus  or  his  disciples,  show- 
ing an  intent  to  make  it,  or  a  belief  that  it 


ever  was  made.  On  the  contrary,  in  several 
passages,  it  evidently  conflicts  with  the  no- 
tion that  to  the  first  day  has  been  trans- 
ferred the  sanctity  once  belonging  to  the 
seventh.  It  relates  that  both  Jesus  and  his 
disciples,  did,  on  the  first  day,  what,  under 
the  old  law,  was  unlawful  on  the  seventh. 
The  journey  of  the  two  disciples,  mentioned 
in  Luke  24,  was  about  twenty  times  as  far 
as  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath,  and  Jesus  per- 
formed a  great  part  of  it  with  them.  Yet 
this  was  on  the  first  day.  On  that  day,  too, 
he  led  eleven  apostles  to  Bethany,  twice  as 
far  as  a  Sabbath  day's  journey,  and  gave 
them  his  farewell  blessing;  thus  coupling 
that  solemn  act  with  a  practical  denial  of 
the  doctrine  that  the  old  Sabbatical  law  is 
still  in  force,  with  only  a  change  of  day. 

Not  the  least  striking  proof  against  the 
alleged  sanctity  of  the  first  day,  is  the  ex- 
treme slenderness  of  the  evidence  relied  on 
in  its  favor.  From  the  mention  of  three  or 
four  instances  of  the  disciples'  meeting  on 
the  first — for  what  purpose  is  not  distinctly 
stated — from  one  instance  of  Paul's  preach- 


35 

ing  on  that  day,  and  from  his  written  direc- 
tion to  some  of  the  churches,  that,  upon  it 
each  member  should  "lay  by  him  in  store" 
what  he  could  spare  for  the  relief  of  the 
saints  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  inferred  that  the 
first  day  of  every  week  was  the  stated  time 
of  social  worship ;  and  from  this  inference  it 
is  inferred  that  the  day  was  esteemed  holy. 
But  this  no  more  follows,  even  admitting 
the  usage  and  its  religious  purpose,  than 
that  the  friends  of  foreign  missions  regard 
the  first  Monday  evening  of  every  month  as 
peculiarly  holy,  because  they  meet  upon  it 
for  religious  exercises ;  or  that  the  Quakers 
so  esteem  their  two  stated  meeting  days  in 
in  each  week.  It  is  said,  too,  that  John 
"was  in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord's  day." 
Whether  that  was  the  first  or  some  other 
day  it  does  not  appear,  but  if  it  were  the 
first,  this  is  no  proof  of  its  sacredness,  or  of 
our  duty  to  keep  it  as  a  Sabbath.  Jesus,  it 
is  further  said,  was  wont,  before  his  death, 
to  attend  the  synagogue  on  the  seventh  day, 
and  after  his  resurrection,  met  his  disciples 
for    religious   purposes   on    the  first    only. 


36 


But  if  their  gathering  on  that  day  did  not 
prove  it  holy  in  their  esteem,  neither  did 
his  meeting  with  them  prove  it  so  in  his. 
And  as  to  his  frequenting  the  synagogue,  if 
that  custom  gave  his  authority  to  Sabbath- 
keeping,  then,  by  like  reasoning,  we  have 
apostolic  authority  for  the  seventh  day  Sab- 
bath, under  the  new  dispensation,  for  Paul's 
practice  was  the  same.  Acts  13:  14;  17: 
2 ;  18 :  4.  But  neither  inference  is  just. 
Both  Paul  and  Jesus  went  to  preach  the 
gospel,  where  they  knew  the  people  would 
be  assembled,  no  more  implying,  thereby,  the 
holiness  of  the  seventh  or  the  first,  than  of 
any  other  day  on  which  they  preached. 

The  whole  amount  of  what  is  claimed  as 
scriptural  evidence  of  the  transfer  of  the 
Sabbath  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is  now, 
I  believe,  before  the  reader.  Its  manifest 
deficiency  some  have  attempted  to  supply 
from  other  sources ;  seeking  proof  of  apos- 
tolic authority  for  the  transfer,  in  the  early 
practice  of  the  church,  and  the  traditions 
of  the  Fathers.  But  here,  too,  they  fail. 
3Iuch  of  the  testimony  already  brought  to 


37 

show  that  the  primitive  Christians  thought 
the  old  law  abolished,  will  bear  on  this  point 
also  ;  and  much  more  might  be  added,  were 
there  space  and  need.  W.  L.  Fisher — after 
tracing  various  ecclesiastical  histories,  and 
consulting  the  writings  of  the  earliest  au- 
thors in  the  Christian  era,  and  other  works, 
old  and  rare,  relating  to  the  subject,  omit- 
ting nothing  within  his  reach — testifies  that 
he  found  no  proof  that  the  first  day  was  re- 
garded as  taking  the  place  of  the  original 
Sabbath,  but  that  "  evidence  accumulated  " 
upon  him  "  showing  exactly  the  reverse." 
Alluding  to  an  assertion  that  Justin  Martyr, 
in  his  apology  calls  Sunday  a  holy  day,  and 
Eusebius  establishes  the  transfer  of  the  day 
by  Christ  himself,  he  says  "  these  authors 
say  no  such  thing."  "  The  same  is  true, 
he  adds,  "  of  other  early  authors,  referred 
to  as  establishing  the  same  point."  The 
learned  Whately  says,  "  not  only  is  there 
no  such  apostolic  injunction,  than  which 
nothing  less  would  be  sufficient ;  there  is 
not  even  any  tradition  of  their  having  made 
such  a  change  ;  nay,  more,  it  is  even  abun- 
4 


38 


dantly  plain  that  they  made  no  such  change." 
He  adds,  "  if  we  come  down  to  later  ages 
of  the  church,  we  find  no  allusion  to  any 
such  tradition,  but  the  contrary  is  distinctly 
implied,  both  in  the  writings  of  the  early 
fathers,  and  in  those  of  the  most  eminent  of 
the  founders  of  our  reformation."  John 
Calvin,  in  his  "  Institutes,"  calls  the  Sab- 
bath "  a  shadowy  ceremony,"  to  which 
"  Christians  ought  not  to  adhere ;"  declares 
it  "  abolished  at  the  advent  of  Christ,"  (not 
transferred  to  another  day,)  treats  the  as- 
sembling for  relio-ious  services  on  the  first 
day  as  a  matter  of  mere  expediency,  and 
"  would  not  advise  an  invariable  adherence 
to  the  septenary  number;"  affirms  that 
"  the  substance  "  whereof  the  Sabbath  was 
a  shadow,  "  is  contained,  not  in  one  day,  but 
in  the  whole  course  of  our  life ;  and  con- 
tinues, "thus  vanish  all  the  dreams  of  false 
prophets,  who  in  past  ages  have  infested  the 
people  with  a  Jewish  notion,  affirming  that 
nothing  but  the  ceremonial  part  of  this 
commandment,  (which  according  to  them 
is  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  clay,)  has 


39 

been  abrogated,  but  that  the  moral  part, 
that  is,  the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven, 
still  remains."  Martin  Luther  has  for  one 
of  his  heads  of  discourse,  in  his  larger  cate- 
chism, "  External  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
does  not  belong  to  Christians ;"  and  for 
another,  "  Observance  of  days  is  not  neces- 
sary. "  Coleridge  states  that  Luther  said 
of  the  Christian  day  of  rest,  "Keep  it  for 
its  use's  sake,  but  if  any  where  it  is  made 
holy  for  the  mere  day's  sake,  if  any  one  sets 
up  its  observance  upon  a  Jewish  foundation, 
then  I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to  ride  on  it, 
to  dance  on  it,  to  feast  on  it,  to  do  any  thing 
that  shall  reprove  this  encroachment  on  the 
Christian  spirit  and  liberty." 

The  celebrated  Augsburg  confession  of 
faith,  written  by  Melancthon,  from  a  more 
compressed  statement  by  Luther,  and,  after 
being  submitted  to  the  leading  reformers, 
presented  to  the  Augsburg  Diet  as  embody- 
ing the  doctrines  of  the  reformed  church, 
classes  "the  Lord's  day"  with  "the  pass- 
over  and  other  similar  rites,"  and  says  that 


40 


those  who  judge  that,hy  the  authority  of  the 
church,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  has 
been  substituted  for  that  of  the  Sabbath,  as  if 
necessary,  greatly  err.  The  Scripture  has 
abrogated  the  Sabbath,  teaching  that  all 
Mosaic  ceremonies  may  be  omitted  since 
the  Gospel  has  been  preached."  It  gives, 
also,  as  one  reason  why  the  church  ap- 
pointed "the  Lord's  day"  for  the  people  to 
assemble,  "that  men  might  have  an  exam- 
ple of  Christian  liberty,  and  understand  that 
neither  the  Sabbath  nor  any  other  day  was 
now  necessary  to  be  observed."  Paley  says, 
"a  cessation  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week 
from  labor,  beyond  the  time  of  attendance 
upon  public  worship,  is  not  intimated  in 
any  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  nor  did 
Christ  or  his  apostles  deliver,  that  we  know 
of,  any  command  to  their  disciples,  for  the 
discontinuance  upon  that  day  of  the  com- 
mon offices  of  their  profession." 

These  are  a  few  of  many  such  testimonies, 
found  in  the  writings  of  eminent  men,  and 
the  records  of  ecclesiastical  history,  confirm- 


41 


ing,  so  far  as  such  authorities  can,  the  doc- 
trine of  these  pages,  that  Christianity  makes 
no  distinction  in  the  holiness  of  days. 

But  Sabbatarians  do  not  rest  on  Scripture 
and  tradition  alone.  They  appeal  to  physi- 
ology also,  and  affirm  the  need  of  rest  one 
day  in  seven,  to  keep  body  and  mind  from 
wearing  out  before  their  time.  Now,  that 
man  cannot  bear  unceasing  toil  is  mani- 
festly true;  but  it  by  no  means  follows 
thence,  that  just  one-seventh  is  the  due  pro- 
portion of  time  for  repose,  or,  if  it  were, 
that  six  successive  days  ought  to  be  given 
to  labor,  and  one  to  rest.  It  is  at  least  an 
open  question,  whether  a  week's  labor  will 
not  cost  more  fatigue  when  crowded  into 
six  days,  than  when  spread  over  seven  ; 
whether  the  alleged  need  of  a  seventh  day's 
rest  is  not  created  by  too  much  labor  in  the 
six  ;  and  whether  this  arrangement  does  not 
induce  the  excess  out  of  which  grows  its 
supposed  necessity.  What  proof  has  been 
or  can  be  given,  beyond  sheer  assumption, 
that  the  physiological  law  is  not  as  well 
obeyed  in  shortening  the  work-time  of  each 

r 


42 

day,  as  in  lessening  the  number  of  work- 
days in  the  week  \ 

But  granting  that  physiology  enjoins  the 
use  of  one  day  in  seven  to  make  good  the 
wear  of  the  other  six,  it  cannot  require  all 
men  to  spend  it  alike.  Different  circum- 
stances must  produce  different  wants. 
What  would  benefit  one  might  harm  an- 
other. The  hand-laborer,  fatigued  by  bodily 
exertion,  and  needing  rest  for  limb  and 
muscle,  might  profitably  give  the  hours  to 
reading,  meditation,  and  hearing  important 
truths  which  would  furnish  food  for  thought. 
~\Ien  of  sedentary  habits,  whose  work-day 
toil  is  of  the  mind,  would  need  release  from 
thought  to  give  the  brain  repose,  and  manual 
labor  or  athletic  sports,  to  counteract  the 
hurtful  tendency  of  long  bodily  inaction. 
To  those  who  are  shut  up  in  shops  and 
breathe  the  close  air  of  narrow  courts  and 
alleys  in  the  crowded  city,  a  ramble  in  the 
fields  or  a  trip  on  the  water  might  best  meet 
the  demands  of  their  condition ;  while  they 
whose  work  is  in  the  open  country,  would 
find  it  pleasant  and  not  injurious  to  divide 


43 


the  day  between  a  thronged  church  and 
their  own  domestic  sanctuaries. 

On  another  point,  too,  the  argument  fails. 
For  aught  it  proves  or  tends  to  prove,  the 
rest-day  may  he  any  other  day  of  the  week 
as  well  as  the  first,  since  one  will  serve  for 
repose  as  well  as  another,  and  each  man 
may  choose  his  own,  so  that  in  the  varying 
choices  no  day  would  be  generally  kept. 
Indeed,  some  who  strenuously  assert  the 
duty  of  Sabbath-keeping  do  take  this  liberty 
as  to  the  day.  Clergymen,  whose  calling 
requires  them  to  work  harder  on  their  "sa- 
cred" day  than  any  other,  sometimes  obey 
the  physiological  law,  they  tell  us,  by  rest- 
ing on  the  next  before  or  after.  Whatever 
this  fact  may  prove  as  to  the  duty  of  peri- 
odical cessation  from  labor,  it  is  far  enough 
from  upholding  the  sanctity  of  any  particu- 
lar day.  For  if  one  class  of  men  may 
choose  its  day,  every  other  has  the  same 
right,  which  defeats  the  claim  of  any  one 
day  to  peculir  holiness. 

And  even  if  all  these  difficulties  were 
overcome,  the  case  is  not  yet   made  out. 


44 

Be  it  that  we  need  one  day  in  seven  for 
rest :  and  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is 
peculiarly  fit,  above  all  others,  to  be  devoted, 
by  all  men,  to  this  use.  This  no  more 
proves  it  holy  time,  or  establishes  the  sin- 
fulness of  secular  employments  upon  it,  or 
justifies  legislative  enactments  for  its  ob- 
servance, than  the  universal  need  of  sleep, 
and  the  manifest  fitness  of  night  as  the  time 
for  sleep,  prove  that  night  is  holy,  that 
work  or  play  in  it  is  sinful,  and  that  they 
may  be  forbidden  by  statute,  without  in- 
fringing the  rights  of  the  people.  Any  of 
these  points  failing,  the  whole  physiological 
argument  fails. 

But  enough  has  now  been  said,  to  prove 
that  the  claim  of  peculiar  sanctity,  for  one 
day  above  another,  has  no  support  in  Scrip- 
ture, tradition,  or  reason ;  and  of  course  that 
to  require  the  observance  of  a  particular 
day,  or  to  forbid  any  intrinsically  harmless 
occupation  thereon,  is  not  only  to  infringe 
the  rights  of  conscience,  but  to  prop  up  a 
fahe  creed  by  unconstitutional  legislation. 


